Friday, June 10, 2011
CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS FOR AALS ON TEACHING
Re: Request for Proposals on Innovative Teaching, Other Legal Education Practices, and Work at the Intersections among Scholarship, Teaching, and Service
We are planning the AALS 2011 Annual Meeting Workshop on "Changes in Law Practice; Innovations in Legal Education," to be held on Thursday, January 5, 2012 in Washington, D.C. The workshop seeks to examine (1) the many changes currently underway in how law practice is organized and carried out, and (2) the relationship between these changes and the future of legal education.
We are seeking proposals on innovations in the many facets of legal education, especially teaching and work at the intersections among teaching, scholarship, and service. Proposals selected by the workshop planning committee will receive national exposure, either through possible presentation on a workshop panel or by being included on the AALS Workshop webpage highlighting ideas and themes generated by the workshop. We are interested in any innovations taking place in legal education that would be of interest to members of the legal academy in planning for the future against the backdrop of the changes in law practice that our students will encounter in their legal careers.
Some possible topic areas might include (but are not necessarily limited to):
innovations that point the way to what legal education of the future could or should be;
innovations in teaching that reflect expansive conceptions of the cognitive abilities and skills needed for law practice beyond traditional conceptions of legal analysis;
innovations that combine newer and more traditional teaching methods;
innovations that engage with changes in law practice and/or respond to the changing economic realities of the profession;
innovations that involve interdisciplinary collaborations and/or borrowing from ideas and innovations taking place in other disciplines or professions;
innovations aimed at cultivating experiential learning and reflection through externships and other practice-based experiences;
innovations in legal education that address differences in styles of learning;
innovations in methods of giving meaningful feedback and evaluation;
innovative work at the intersections among scholarship, teaching and service;
innovations in scholarly activity that involve different kinds of critical inquiry beyond the traditional law review article, such as a sabbatical engaged in law practice;
innovations in teaching designed to address gender and racial disparity among positions of leadership and power in the legal profession;
interdisciplinary teaching, scholarship and/or service projects;
innovations in the financing and organization of legal education.
Interested proposal writers from faculty at AALS member schools should submit a short (not more than 1,000 word) description of their innovation in teaching or legal education more generally, or innovation through work at the intersections among scholarship, teaching and service, to 2012WLP@aals.org by July 15, 2011.
We will notify proposal writers by September 1, 2011, if they have been selected for an oral workshop panel presentation or a written posting of their proposal on the AALS website for the workshop. Selected speakers will pay their registration fee for the Annual Meeting and are responsible for their own travel and other expenses. Please direct questions to any one of the planning committee members; Susan Carle, email@example.com; Renee Knake, firstname.lastname@example.org; Carol Needham, email@example.com; Mitt Regan, firstname.lastname@example.org; and Carla Pratt, email@example.com.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
CFP for January 2012 AALS Conference, deadline August 29, 2011
The AALS Section on Federal Courts is pleased to announce a call for papers in conjunction with the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, to be held January 4–8, 2012, in Washington, D.C.
The topic of the section program at the 2012 Annual Meeting (Saturday, January 7, 1:30–3:15 p.m.) is “War, Terrorism, and the Federal Courts Ten Years After 9/11.” To that end, the panel will focus on the unique issues that federal courts have confronted during (and relating to) the conflict against al Qaeda and related terrorist groups, and how that body of jurisprudence has—and may yet—affect the role of the federal courts more generally going forward. Papers submitted in connection with the call should focus on this topic, or any specific aspect thereof, and should be between 15,000 and 30,000 words, including footnotes.
One paper will be selected from the call, and will be published in Volume 61 of the American University Law Review, alongside contributions from the invited panelists—including Curtis Bradley (Duke), Judith Resnik (Yale), Steve Vladeck (American), and the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit). In addition, the author of the selected paper will be invited to participate in the Federal Courts section panel at the 2012 Annual Meeting.
To be considered, papers must be submitted via e-mail to Steve Vladeck, American University Washington College of Law (firstname.lastname@example.org). All full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are eligible to submit papers. Foreign, visiting (and not full-time on a different faculty) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and fellows are not eligible to submit.
The deadline for submission is 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, August 29, 2011. Papers will be selected after review by an ad hoc committee composed of members of the Executive Committee of the AALS Section on Federal Courts. The selected author will be notified by Monday, October 3, 2011, and will be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Dean and Faculty of the University of New Hampshire School of Law will welcome the ABA Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System to hold a hearing on Thursday 26 May.
Three panels led by Co-Chairs David Boies and Theodore B. Olson will hear testimony from various state Chief Justices, state Bar leaders and Professor Laurence Tribe (former Department of Justice Senior Counselor for Access to Justice).
The proceedings will be streamed live at http://law.unh.edu/live starting at 11 a.m. EST through 3 p.m. EST.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The AALS Section on Women in Legal Education announces a paper competition with the topic “New Voices in Gender Studies” for the 2012 AALS Annual Meeting, January 4-8, 2012, Washington, D.C. The deadline is August 15, 2011.
This is a great opportunity for new faculty writing about constitutional gender/sexuality issues. Here is the anouncement:
The AALS Section on Women in Legal Education will hold a program during the AALS 2012 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., with paper presentations by the winners of the 2012 New Voices in Gender Studies paper competition.
Submissions should be of scholarship relating to (1) women in legal education, (2) any aspect of women’s or men’s relationship to the law, or (3) gender, sexuality and the law. There is a maximum 30,000 word limit (inclusive of footnotes) for the submission. Since this is a paper presentation opportunity, and not one for publication, submitted papers can be committed for publication prior to their submission, but cannot be actually in print prior to their submission. Each professor may submit only one paper for consideration.
Papers will be reviewed anonymously. The manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter with the author’s name and contact information. The manuscript itself, including title page and footnotes, must not contain any references that identify the author or the author’s school. The submitting author is responsible for taking any steps necessary to redact self-identifying text or footnotes. The immediate past winners of the prior year’s competition are ineligible to participate this year. In the event of a tie, one consideration for the reviewing panel will be whether any of the submitting authors have the opportunity to present the submitted article during another presentation at the conference.
To be considered, papers must be submitted electronically to Professor Linda Jellum, Mercer University School of Law, email@example.com. The deadline for submission is Monday, August 15, 2011. Authors of accepted papers will be notified by October 3, 2011. Call for Paper participants will be responsible for paying their annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools, who have been teaching for five or fewer years as of August 16, 2011, are eligible to submit papers. Foreign, visiting (and not full-time on a different faculty) and adjunct faculty members, graduate students, and fellows are not eligible to submit.
Papers will be selected after review by an ad hoc committee composed of officers, executive committee members, and the winners of the 2011 competition.
Any inquiries about the Call for Papers should be submitted to: Professor Linda Jellum, Mercer University School of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org, (478) 301-5689.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Registration is open for the American Constitution Society 10th Anniversary National Convention, Constitution at the Crossroads: Progress Imperiled?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
AALS Section of Constitutional Law Calls for Papers
The AALS Section of Constitutional Law will hold two panels at the AALS Annual Meeting, January 4-8, 2012, in Washington, D.C.
The section is inviting submission of abstracts for scholars who would like to be part of a panel on either of the issues set out below. Junior scholars, women, and faculty of color are especially invited to submit an abstract. Each abstract should be no more than five pages. One or more speakers at each panel will be selected from those submitting abstracts. Abstracts should be submitted (electronically, by Word or rtf document) by June 30, 2011 to Professor Garrett Epps, President, AALS Section of Constitutional Law University of Baltimore School of Law, 1415 Maryland Ave, Baltimore MD 21201 email: gepps AT ubalt.edu
PANEL ONE: American Citizenship in the 21st Century
American citizenship, whether acquired by birth or naturalization, has become intensely controversial in the past five years. Two provisions of the Constitution relate to it most directly: the requirement in Article II that the President must be a “natural born citizen” (coupled with varying requirements for length of citizenship for service in the House and Senate), and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which recognizes birthright citizenship for “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” However, unlike in many contemporary constitutions, there is no complete constitutional definition of citizenship or description of its privileges, responsibilities, or qualities. Much of the process of its acquisition or recognition is governed by statutes passed under Congress’ authority “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Congress and state legislatures are debating proposals to amend the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship or to seek to do the same thing by state or federal statute. Others insist that Congress lacks authority to vary the current rule, and that states have no role to play in regulating or determining citizenship. Many believe that this issue is sure to come before the federal courts in the near future. In the immigration context, proposals to provide a “path to citizenship” for undocumented aliens are seen by some as indispensable to comprehensive immigration reform, while others decry any measure to do this as “amnesty.” In either case, the presence of as many as 12 million undocumented aliens exerts a significant effect on the machinery designed to regulate immigration and citizenship, and may by default create in practical terms two tiers of citizenship, reviving the old common-law concept of the “denizen.” Beyond this, the nature of American citizenship is contested at the philosophical and political level, with arguments drawing on history, political theory, and comparative law and policy.
What does American citizenship mean today? How has its meaning changed over time? What is the future of the concept and the policy and legal apparatus that maintains it. Our first panel is open to participants who submit thought-provoking and original abstracts on any aspect of this issue, whether doctrinal, theoretical, economic, comparative, or empirical.
PANEL TWO: Article V: “To All Intents and Purposes”
Proposals to amend the Constitution have arisen in a variety of context in the last decade, quickening in pace as the ideological gulf within our society widens. Activists of both parties have repeatedly called for specific amendments to change certain features of the Constitution or overturn Supreme Court interpretations of its meaning. Others, both on the right and left, have begun to organize a serious effort to spark a call from Congress for a new Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. Article V, the mechanisms setting up the amendment process, is little understood and seldom taught as part of the Constitutional Law curriculum. Many political scientists and scholars criticize Article V as requiring too great a consensus for a proposed amendments. Others express concern that the Convention mechanism, which has never been used, could open the political system to sudden radical change without adequate democratic participation and public deliberation. Quite remarkably, the most recent Amendment actually adopted (in 1992) was proposed by the First Congress in 1789, and approved by legislatures over a 200-year window, leading to suggestions that the Article V mechanism has inadequate limits on its workings.
How does Article V really work? How has its practical function changed since Madison proposed the first Amendments (many of which were not adopted; the others of which became the Bill of Rights)? What light is shed on it by the fact that the Convention designed two features in the Constitution that could never be amended? What can we learn from the two periods—the aftermath of the Civil War and the Progressive Era—when political movements and popular majorities made effective use of Article V? What are the perils and promises of the Convention mechanism? What is the role of Congress in the process? How does popular constitutionalism play into the process? Is it time to use Article V to amend Article V? Again, the Section invites abstracts on any aspect of Article V, again from a wide variety of perspectives, and including descriptive, analytical and normative work.
Friday, April 22, 2011
2011 Elon Law Review Symposium Request for Proposals
“TERRORISM’S IMPACT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE: HOW THE DETECTION, INVESTIGATION, AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS CHANGED SINCE 9/11”
Call for Articles, Essays, and Requests to Present
October 21, 2011
deadline for proposals: July 1, 2011
At Elon University School of Law, in Greensboro, NC, the law review has announced its symposium and is seeking proposals:
The editors of the Elon Law Review invite article proposals and requests to present from scholars, researchers, practitioners, and professionals on topics relating generally to changes in criminal law since 9/11. The goals of the symposium are: to analyze how the legal landscape has changed due to the increased dedication of policing resources to “the war on terror” and terrorism detection, and to examine the impact of resulting criminal legislation and political focus on terrorism in areas such as the civil rights of suspected terrorists and others, law enforcement tactics, new investigatory practices, and new issues impacting the prosecutorial function. Also, the symposium will look beyond terrorism and discuss the practical legal implications caused by the changes to the political landscape resulting from the 9/11 attacks. Desired substantive areas of interest include, but are not limited to: criminal law, evidence, criminal procedure, civil rights, and legislation.
Please submit proposals of no more than 500 words by attachment to Symposium EditorScott Morgan at Bmorgan6@elon.edu by July 1st. All proposals should include the name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information of the intended author/presenter, and should address matters relating to the legal implications of the 9/11 attacks and the governmental and judicial reaction to that event. Authors are welcome to submit a CV.
The Elon Law Review expects to make offers to speakers and authors by at least August 1st and will cover the participants’ expenses. Completed articles/essays will be due December 1, 2011 for publication in the Spring 2012 Symposium Edition of the Elon Law Review.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
RACE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE WEST
Gonzaga University School of Law
Friday-Saturday, September 23-24, 2011
Gonzaga University School of Law
The Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System
deadline for submission of proposals June 6, 2011
From the conference organizers: "This conference seeks to examine the topic of race and the criminal justice system in the Western states. Racial minorities continue to be overrepresented in our criminal justice system; yet too often concerns about the high arrest and incarceration rates are dismissed as simply the result of a high rate of criminality. This conference will explore the role of bias, both conscious and unconscious, to ask whether race still matters in our criminal justice system. While the emphasis will be on the West, we welcome papers and presentations focusing on other areas of the country, particularly ones that engage in comparative analyses."
Proposals must contain the following information:
Name, Address, Phone, and e-mail
Title of Presentation and whether the paper will be submitted for publication
A statement of up to 300 words explaining topic
The organizers welcome suggestions for full or partial panels. The deadline for submission of proposals is June 6, 2011. Please submit proposals via e-mail to Professor Jason Gillmer of Gonzaga Law. Those submitting can expect to receive a response by July 1, 2011. Final drafts of papers will be due October 24, 2011. Publication decisions for papers will be made by the Gonzaga Law Review.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Conference Announcement and Call for Papers
The Loyola Second Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium
October 21 & 22, 2011
The submission deadline for abstracts is May 31, 2011.
Loyola University Chicago School of Law is organizing the Second Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium at the Philip H. Corboy Law Center, 25 East Pearson Street, Chicago, IL 60611. The event will begin on Friday morning, October 21 and end midday on Saturday, October 22, 2011.
This is the second annual Loyola conference bringing together constitutional law scholars at all stages of their professional development to discuss current projects, doctrinal developments in constitutional law, and future goals. We hope to schedule presentations for all who submit. In this way, we will provide a forum for the vetting of ideas, invaluable opportunities for informed critiques, and networking opportunities. Presentations will be grouped by subject matter.
The organizers invite abstract submissions of 150 to 200 words from Constitutional Law professors interested in contributing to the current debates concerning constitutional theory and Supreme Court rulings. The goal of the conference is to allow professors to develop new ideas with the help of supportive colleagues on a wide range of constitutional law topics. Again, the submission deadline for abstracts is May 31, 2011.
Topics, abstracts, papers, questions, and comments should be submitted to: Program Administrator Carrie Bird, email@example.com.
Note from the organizers: "Participants are expected to pay their own travel expenses. Loyola will provide facilities, support, and continental breakfasts on Friday and Saturday, lunch on Friday and Saturday, and a dinner on Friday night. There are numerous reasonably priced hotels within walking distance of the Loyola School of Law and Chicago’s Magnificent Mile."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
There's an impressive group of participants, and the list is growing:
- Diane Orentlicher, Deputy, State Department Office for War Crimes Issues
- Vince Warren, ED, Center for Constitutional Rights
- Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organizations
- Gary Motsek, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Support
- Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Family Research Council
- Joe Stork, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch
- Shari Knoerzer, Social Responsibility and Community Development-Asia and Africa, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.
Aryeh Neier, President of the Open Society Foundations, will deliver the keynote, titled The Arab Revolutions, Human Rights and the Obama Administration, on Thursday, April 28, at 1:00 p.m.
Registration is free. For more information and registration, click here.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Cardozo School of Law's Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy is hosting a symposium on Tuesday, April 12, 2011, on Public Secrets: From the Pentagon Papers to WikiLeaks. The program will run from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. in the Jacob Burns Moot Court Room, Cardozo, 55 Fifth Avenue (at 12th Street), New York. From the announcement:
This symposium will bring together panelists with experience in the situation room, the newsroom and the courtroom to explore the competing claims of national security and the public interest in the disclosure of confidential national security information. . . .
The framework for the discussion will be Cardozo Professor David Rudenstine's seminal work The Day the Presses Stopped, A History of the Pentagon Papers Case. Attendees will also hear excerpts of previously unreleased interviews with Robert McNamara, John Mitchell, William H. Rehnquist, and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger.
The line-up is quite impressive:
- Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
- John B. Bellinger III, Arnold & Porter LLP
- Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations
- Adam Liptak, The New York Times
- The Honorable Michael Mukasey, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
- David Rudenstine, Cardozo Law School
- Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU
To attend, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org, or call 212.790.0200 x6700.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Loyola University Chicago Law Review is hosting a conference next Friday, April 8, titled Hate Speech, Incitement & Genocide.
The line-up is terrific, with panels on Developing the Structure of Genocide Law, Hate Speech and Genocide in Africa and the Middle East, and Free Speech and Equality in the Internet Age. The lunch-time speaker is Irwin Cotler, Professor Emeritus at McGill and former Attorney General and Member of the Canadian Parliament for Mount Royal.
The conference runs from 8:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Friday, April 8, at the Philip H. Corboy Law Center, Power Rogers & Smith Ceremonial Courtroom, 25 East Pearson Street, 10th Floor, Chicago. Get more information here; download a conference brochure here.
For advance registration and information, please contact Conference Editor Craig Beaker at email@example.com, or tel. 312.915.7183.
Monday, March 28, 2011
"We Must First Take Account" is a conference the end of this week at Michigan Law on Race, Law, and History.
“To get beyond racism, we must first take account of race,” is the well-remembered phrase from Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in the 1978 Bakke decision. Blackmun’s view may remain controversial in debates about constitutional jurisprudence. But for historians of law it is axiomatic. In the generation since Bakke, scholars have indeed taken account, mining legal culture’s archives to explain the origins and endurance of race. Today race is at the core of interpreting the history of law in the Americas. Understood as a set of ideas that
rely upon religion, culture, labor, biology, and politics, race has organized profound inequality and galvanized movements for social justice.
More information and the program is available here. A stellar line-up of speakers!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
A "mini-symposium" on April 7, 2011, starting at 3pm, will feature a lecture on "One State's Challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act" by Maura Healey, Chief, Civil Rights Division, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.
Healy (pictured right) will be speaking about Massachusetts' successful constitutional challenge to section 3 of DOMA; Judge Tauro found that section 3 "offends" the Tenth Amendment reasoning that marriage is a quintessential matter of state, and not federal, power.
Healy's talk will be followed by a panel discussion, moderated by Steve Sanders, and including:
- Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, State of Indiana
- Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
- Brian Powell, Rudy Professor of Sociology, Indiana University College of Arts & Sciences and co-author of Counted Out: Same-sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of the Family
- Deborah Widiss, Associate Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
More information about the event and its webcast available here.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
For some, this provision is ambiguous, especially when it is applied to persons born in the United States of non-citizen parents who are not authorized to be within the nation's borders.
A fascinating discussion - - - styled as a debate - - - between John Eastman, of Chapman School of Law, and Ediberto Román, (pictured left) of Florida International University, illuminates the interpretations of this provision with reference to constitutional history and current controversies.
Eastman is the author of the paper Born in the USA: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11, based on his Congressional testimony contending that section one of the Fourteenth Amendment has been misconstrued as mandating birthright citizenship and that the clause was merely a"codification" of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Román is the author of the book Citizenship and its Exclusions: A Classical, Constitutional, and Critical Race Critique, which we discussed here.
The video and audio of the proceedings, part of a conference at FIU on Citizenship can be accessed over at Nuestras Voces Latinas here.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Drake Law School Constitutional Law Center recently announced its 2011 Symposium, "Debating the Living Constitution." The Symposium is Saturday, April 2, from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. at Drake; more information, including a registration form, is here. Here's the line-up:
- The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Iowa
- Miguel Schor, Visiting Professor of Law and Director of the Drake Constitutional Law Center, 2010-2011
- Do We Have a Living Constitution?, David Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
- Assisted Living, Rebecca Brown, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Southern California School of Law
- The Problem of Article V for Constitutional Theory, Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
- Democracy and the Living Tree Constitution, Wil Waluchow, Senator William McMaster Chair in Constitutional Studies, McMaster University.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The keynote lecture Friday evening at this year's conference of the Association for the Study of Law, Culture and the Humanities was Anatomies of Torture: CIA Black Sites and Redacted Bodies, delivered by Joseph Pugliese (pictured) of Macquarie University in Australia.
In his examination of the so-called "black sites," secret prisons located outside U.S. jurisdiction in which a range of state-sanctioned practices of torture have transpired, Pugliese focused on the death of a young Afghan man, Gul Rahman, who died on 20 November 2002, in the CIA black site prison known as the Salt Pit, located in northern Kabul, Afghanistan. While Rahman's body has never been recovered, Pugliese argues that Rahman is nominally buried within the Classified Response to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Classified Report Dated July 29, 2009. This document, prepared by Counsel for Judge Jay S. Bybee, is a detailed repost to the accusation made by the Office of Professional Resposibility (OPR) that Bybee committed professional misconduct in light of Bybee’s memo (August 1, 2002) to Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, which authorised some forms of torture.
Yet portions of the memos are redacted. Pugliese displayed the memos and examined the legal process that edits and censors a document of any secret or sensitive information through the application of a black marker over designated text. In the context of the CIA "black sites" and the Salt Pit in particular, Pugliese argues that the process of redaction must be seen as producing its own discursive black sites of silence, loss and death.
Pugliese's presentation was spell-binding and an excellent capstone to a conference in which the critical tools of humanities scholars and legal scholars were so often combined.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
For a Conference in Milan, Italy on December 1-2, 2011, with proposals due April 24, 2011.
In virtually every nation, assertions of the need for secrecy on matters of counterterrorism policy and practice have created tensions with efforts to ensure transparency, accountability and procedural fairness. The conference is open to proposals that seek to bring comparative analysis to bear on how best to mediate these tensions, including:
- the challenge of secrecy to democratic lawmaking on counterterrorism policy;
- the use of “secrecy” privileges to block litigation challenging allegedly illegal government
- the use of classified evidence against individuals or organizations to freeze their assets, designate them as terrorist, or justify other restraints on their liberty;
- the use of “anonymous” witnesses who testify without revealing their identity;
- the closure of criminal trials and other proceedings to the public;
- and the adoption of secret coercive programs without transparent legal justification, such as the US’s coercive interrogation practices or targeted killing program.